Journal of Psychotherapy Integration

© 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 30, No. 1, 76 – 83

1053-0479/20/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/int0000165

LGBQ-Affirming and -Nonaffirming Supervision: Perspectives From

a Queer Trainee

Matthew A. Hagler
University of Massachusetts Boston
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Research has suggested that culturally competent and supervision practices that affirm
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and queers (LGBQs) improve supervisory working alliances
and enhance supervisees’ confidence in their ability to work with diverse clients. In
contrast, supervisors’ heterosexism and ignorance of cultural considerations can make
supervisees, particularly those who identify as LGBQ, feel marginalized, resulting in
decreased depth and frequency with which LGBQ issues are discussed in supervision
as well as weaker working alliances. In this article, I describe episodes in which 1
supervisor engaged in practices that I, as a queer trainee, experienced as supportive and
affirming of diverse sexual identities. These actions included supervisor self-disclosure;
early and routine discussion of cultural issues; and expressions of empathy, validation,
and humility. In contrast, I describe episodes in which I experienced another supervi-
sor’s actions as nonaffirming. These actions included heterosexist microaggressions,
infrequent discussion of cultural diversity, and downplaying the importance of sexual
orientation and other cultural considerations. I contextualize both affirming and non-
affirming practices in existing research and make several recommendations for super-
visors, supervisees, professional organizations, and researchers.

Keywords: clinical supervision, cultural competence, LGBQ issues, case examples,

multicultural counseling

Cultural competence refers to the awareness
of one’s own cultural biases and assumptions,
the understanding of culturally diverse world-
views, and the ability to adapt assessment and
interventions accordingly (Sue, 2001). Cultural
competence is a professional and ethical man-
date for all practicing psychologists and trainees
(American Psychological Association [APA],
2017). Researchers and practitioners have de-
voted extensive scholarship and commentary to
multicultural dynamics within therapist– client
relationships and, to a lesser extent, within su-
pervisor–supervisee relationships (e.g., APA,
2015; Peters, 2017). Given the inherently hier-
archical and evaluative nature of supervision,
addressing power dynamics related to cultural
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Matthew A. Hagler, Department of Psychology,
University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 William T. Mor-
rissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125. E-mail: matthew
.hagler001@umb.edu
76
identities within supervisory dyads is integral to
cultivating training environments that support
culturally diverse trainees (Hernández & Mc-
Dowell, 2010). Further, clinical supervision is
the primary mechanism for training, quality
control, and gatekeeping in professional psy-
chology. To produce culturally competent psy-
chologists, graduate programs and training sites
must provide culturally competent supervision
(APA, 2015; Watkins, 2014).
Of the various facets of cultural identity, sex-
ual orientation is among the least discussed—in
terms of both frequency and depth—within
clinical supervision (Gatmon et al., 2001; Phil-
lips, Parent, Dozier, & Jackson, 2017; Sohei-
lian, Inman, Klinger, Isenberg, & Kulp, 2014).
As professional psychology and the American
population become increasingly sexually di-
verse (APA, 2016; Gates, 2017), psycholo-
gists must expand their understanding and
practice of LGBQ-affirming supervision. In
this article, I describe key moments in super-
vision that were salient to my experience as a
 LGBQ-AFFIRMING SUPERVISION
queer trainee.1 Throughout, I will contextual-
ize supervisors’ actions in existing research
and theory. Finally, I discuss implications for
future research, policy, and practice.
Supervisors’ Attention to Diverse Sexual
Identities and Other Cultural Issues
As a White, able-bodied, middle class, cis-
gender male, I have navigated my personal and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
professional lives with a considerable amount
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of privilege. As a queer man, I have been op-
pressed. My privilege, my oppression, and their
intersections deeply influence my clinical work
and supervisory relationships. In my 3 years
(and counting) as a doctoral student in clinical
psychology, I have had a range of experiences
in supervision, some that were affirming of sex-
ual diversity and others that were marginalizing.
Reflecting my varied personal experiences,
research has documented significant heteroge-
neity in supervisees’ perceptions of their super-
visors’ cultural competence in general and, spe-
cifically, related to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
queer (LGBQ) issues.2 Sexual orientations—as
well as some religions and ability– disability
statuses—are distinct from other aspects of cul-
tural identity in that they may not be visible, and
the revelation of one’s sexual orientation often
requires self-disclosure. Studies have shown
that discussions of sexual orientation in super-
vision are less frequent than are discussions of
more visible identity statuses such as race, eth-
nicity, and gender (Gatmon et al., 2001; Sohei-
lian et al., 2014). Further, the conversations
about sexual orientation that do occur are more
likely to be initiated by supervisees rather than
supervisors (Duan & Roehlke, 2001; Gatmon et
al., 2001). Unfortunately, the majority of LGBQ
trainees report experiences of heterosexism
(i.e., conscious or subconscious subordination
of sexual minority identities to heterosexuality)
and homonegativism (i.e., conscious or subcon-
scious negative attitudes toward sexual minori-
ties) in supervision. These negative experiences
make LGBQ supervisees less likely to disclose
their sexual orientation to their supervisors and
less likely to discuss sexual diversity issues that
come up in their clinical work (Burkard, Knox,
Hess, & Schultz, 2009; Harbin, Leach, & Eells,
2008; Messinger, 2007). It is concerning that in
studies comparing perspectives within supervi-
sor–supervisee dyads, supervisors tended to
77
overestimate their cultural competence and
knowledge related to LGBQ issues and under-
estimate the impact of heterosexism on their
LGBQ supervisees (Gatmon et al., 2001;
Messinger, 2007).
On the other hand, researchers have also doc-
umented trainees’ experiences of LGBQ-
affirmative supervision (Burkard et al., 2009)
and have provided guidelines for supervising
sexual minority trainees (e.g., Pfohl, 2004; Sat-
terly & Dyson, 2008). I have been fortunate to
work with several supervisors whom I experi-
enced as culturally sensitive and affirming of
diverse sexual identities. One supervisor, in par-
ticular, cultivated a safe, open relationship by
engaging in research-supported best practices.
Case Examples of an LGBQ-Affirming
Supervisor’s Actions
Within our first meeting, in the context of
introductions and establishment of expectations,
Rachel (a pseudonym) highlighted the impor-
tance she places on cultural considerations and
invited me to participate in a sharing exercise
about our identities. In particular, she discussed
her frequent use of Pamela Hays’s (2001)
ADDRESSING Framework, a pneumonic for
clinicians that helps them to reflect on important
aspects of their clients’ and their own cultural
identities (i.e., Age, Disability [congenital–
developmental], Disability [acquired], Religion
and spiritual orientation, Ethnicity and race, So-
cioeconomic status, Sexual orientation, Indige-
nous heritage, National origin, and Gender). Ra-
chel asked whether I would feel comfortable
taking turns discussing each aspect of the
framework in relation to our own identities. Her
inquisitive tone suggested she was truly invit-
ing, not demanding, my participation in the
exercise, and I readily agreed. As we went
through the framework, Rachel discussed her
heterosexual, cisgender, middle class, White,
and able-bodied privilege, as well as her oppres-
sion as a Jewish woman. Because Rachel mod-
1
Some client and supervisor details have been changed to
protect each individual’s identity.
2
This article focuses on sexual identity. Transgender is a
gender, rather than sexual, identity. Although it is com-
monly included in acronyms for lesbians, gays, bisexuals,
transgenders, and queers, focused discussion of gender
identity is beyond the current scope.
 78 HAGLER
eled and scaffolded this dialogue, I felt comfort-
able sharing my own experiences with various
aspects of privilege, as well as discussing my
sexual orientation and the pain of growing up in
a conservative, homonegative community. In
response, Rachel validated my pain, further re-
flected on her own heterosexual privilege, and
expressed her belief that my perspectives as a
queer therapist would enrich our conceptualiza-
tions and her own understanding of queer expe-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
riences. Rachel then discussed how each iden-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tity and intersection has influenced her work
with diverse clients and supervisees, and I sim-
ilarly described past experiences with clients
and supervisors in the context of my identities.
By initiating these discussions early on, as a
matter of routine, Rachel communicated that
cultural identities are valid, welcomed, and ex-
pected topics of conversation in supervision. As
a result, I felt encouraged and comfortable
bringing up cultural issues, including those re-
lated to my sexual orientation, throughout our
work together, deepening the extent to which
we incorporated cultural considerations in our
supervision and my clinical work. Further, Ra-
chel shared power with me and deconstructed
her heterosexual privilege by positioning her-
self as a learner and me as an expert on my lived
experience. Thus, I felt empowered to assert my
expertise and interpretations during discussions
of sexual diversity, which enriched the collab-
orative nature of our supervisory relationship
and my sense of agency. Rachel’s discussion of
her own cultural identities further reduced the
power differential within our relationship and
improved rapport. Because Rachel cultivated
this atmosphere of openness and mutual learn-
ing, I trusted her to competently supervise me
and my work with diverse clients.
Rachel’s actions in this meeting are well sup-
ported by supervision research. More frequent
and in-depth discussions of cultural factors en-
hance supervisees’ perceptions of the working
alliance, the quality of supervision, supervisors’
cultural competence, and their own cultural
competence (Burkard et al., 2006; Inman, 2006;
Phillips et al., 2017; Soheilian et al., 2014).
Although studies have found that discussions of
cultural factors most commonly arise in the
context of specific client issues (Gatmon et al.,
2001), researchers have cautioned against wait-
ing until it “comes up” in a case. Rather, best
practices research has suggested that supervi-
sors should proactively introduce multicultural
issues in supervision as early as possible so that
supervisees know that cultural diversity is safe
and important to discuss (Ancis & Marshall,
2010; Glosoff & Durham, 2010). In particular,
these researchers have recommended that super-
visors and supervisees collaboratively develop
and share cultural genograms (an exercise sim-
ilar to the ADDRESSING framework) and reg-
ularly reflect on cultural similarities and differ-
ences in supervisee– client dyads as well as
within the supervision dyad (Estrada & Frame,
2004; Glosoff & Durham, 2010). These early
and routine discussions of diversity facilitate
more collaborative supervisory relationships,
more thorough consideration of cultural factors,
and more effective implementation of culturally
appropriate assessments and interventions
(Glosoff & Durham, 2010).
Exercises like genograms and the
ADDRESSING Framework create opportuni-
ties for supervisors to disclose some aspects of
their cultural identities, which is integral to es-
tablishing open, culturally competent supervi-
sory relationships (Beinart, 2014; Ladany,
Mori, & Mehr, 2013). First, supervisors’ self-
disclosures counteract the socialized discomfort
and stigma around discussing cultural diversity
(Ladany et al., 2013). By reflecting on their own
cultural experiences, supervisors model an im-
portant component of cultural competence—
awareness of one’s own cultural biases and as-
sumptions (Glosoff & Durham, 2010). Second,
supervisor self-disclosure, particularly in areas
of relative ignorance or inexperience, reduces
power differentials in supervisory relationships,
which in turn invokes an atmosphere of collab-
orative supervision and enhances supervisees’
sense of autonomy (Falender, 2010; Glosoff &
Durham, 2010).
Rachel’s early introduction of cultural factors
set the stage for more in-depth and vulnerable
discussions later on. In particular, Rachel was
supervising my work with a client who began to
use a homonegative slur during therapy ses-
sions. I had not disclosed my sexual identity to
this client, and he seemed to assume I was
heterosexual. This experience was difficult and
complex for me to navigate and inevitably in-
terfered with my ability to work effectively with
the client. I attempted to discuss the situation
neutrally and pragmatically in supervision, but
 LGBQ-AFFIRMING SUPERVISION
Rachel quickly picked up on my emotional re-
actions and made space for them, saying,
I can imagine you feel a lot of pain—possibly anger—
right now, and that it feels hard to work with and even
discuss this client. And that is completely OK and
understandable. As a heterosexual woman, I know that
I can’t fully understand the impact this is having on
you and your work with him.
Because Rachel acknowledged and validated
my pain and anger, I felt safe and willing to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
explore my complex reactions to the client, and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
I eventually felt ready to discuss how to move
forward. Rachel laid out several options, rang-
ing from transferring the client to another ther-
apist, to continuing to work with the client
without acknowledging the slurs, to directly dis-
cussing the slurs and my reactions with the
client. Rachel shared her perceptions of the pros
and cons of each approach but was clear that she
would leave the final decision to me. In the end,
Rachel and I developed and role-played a dia-
logue in which I brought up the slur with the
client, disclosed my emotional reaction, and
asked him whether he could continue to work
with me without using that term. I approached
the next session feeling prepared and confident,
and, following a productive discussion, the cli-
ent expressed remorse for using the slur, noting
that he was not aware of its significance and
wanted to continue working together.
By acknowledging and making space for my
emotional reactions, Rachel conveyed open-
ness, validation, and emotional support, which
researchers have identified as key components
of relational safety in supervision (Gatmon et
al., 2001; Hernández & McDowell, 2010). She
also reflected on her limited ability to under-
stand my pain given her heterosexual privilege,
demonstrating cultural humility. Research has
shown that supervisors must approach their
work with cultural humility to supervise train-
ees and clients from diverse cultural back-
grounds (Hook et al., 2016). In this instance,
Rachel’s expression of humility diminished the
power differential, enabling me to approach and
explore a vulnerable experience. When I felt
ready for action planning, Rachel empowered
me to decide how to move forward. Consis-
tently, studies have demonstrated that supervi-
sors’ provision of supported autonomy en-
hances the quality of the supervisory
79
relationship and trainees’ sense of competence
(Glosoff & Durham, 2010; Ladany et al., 2013).
Case Examples of a Nonaffirming
Supervisor’s Actions
Rachel’s affirming actions stand in contrast
to those of Celia, another previous supervisor.
Celia (a pseudonym) was skilled in many ways.
She was highly knowledgeable about the popu-
lation, assessments, and interventions relevant
to our work, and I generally found her to be
caring, pleasant, and helpful. However, Celia
rarely initiated discussions of cultural factors,
and she never made a concerted effort to share
her own cultural identities or learn about mine.
Notably, in one meeting, she made a heterosex-
ist microaggression by assuming my partner
was female, resulting in an awkward disclosure
of my sexual orientation. In another meeting, I
began discussing an adolescent client who had
begun to experience shame about her emerging
sexual desires. Reflecting her heterosexist as-
sumptions about my sexuality, Celia began us-
ing male pronouns to discuss the client’s hypo-
thetical relationship partners. However, the
client had not shared the gender identity of
individuals to whom she was attracted. I pointed
this out to Celia and noted the possibility that
the client may be experiencing same-sex attrac-
tion, which may partly underlie her profound
sense of shame. I also told Celia that the lan-
guage the client used to describe her shame
reminded me of my own experience in under-
standing my queer sexuality during adoles-
cence. In response, Celia noted that it is norma-
tive for teenagers to experience some shame
around emerging sexuality, regardless of their
orientation. She ignored my self-disclosure and
quickly cut off the discussion by expressing the
belief that “it doesn’t really matter, either way.”
Because Celia discounted the impact of hav-
ing a marginalized sexual orientation in my life
and, potentially, that of the client, I emerged
from this meeting feeling hurt, marginalized,
and unheard. Unfortunately, both qualitative
and quantitative studies of LGBQ trainees have
revealed that heterosexist and homonegative ac-
tions from supervisors are common and result in
weaker supervisory working alliances as well as
trainees’ diminished perception of their super-
visors’ cultural competence (Burkard et al.,
2009; Harbin et al., 2008; Messinger, 2007;
 80 HAGLER
Satterly & Dyson, 2008). Researchers have
noted that supervisors’ heterosexism can exag-
gerate existing power dynamics in the relation-
ships, which threatens the dyads’ ability to ef-
fectively and ethically care for all client
issues—including but not limited to sexual
identity (Pfohl, 2004; Satterly & Dyson, 2008).
Pettifor, Sinclair, and Falender (2014) high-
lighted “elephants” in the supervision room,
which are behaviors or events that impact su-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
pervision and client care but that supervisees
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
perceive as unsafe to bring up. They noted that
supervisees’ perception that supervisors do not
care about or consider cultural factors reinforces
the power differential and decreases supervis-
ees’ willingness to address these elephants, re-
sulting in ongoing, suboptimal supervision and
clinical work.
There was certainly an elephant in the room
with Celia and me, and I felt afraid and disem-
powered to address it. Even before these ex-
plicit incidents of heterosexism, Celia had not
communicated her openness and willingness to
discussing cultural factors in supervision. She
also had not shared any aspects of her own
cultural experiences. Although supervisor self-
disclosure should be judicious, researchers have
asserted that it is a necessary component to
culturally competent supervision because it
models the exploration of one’s own cultural
biases, minimizes power differentials, and cul-
tivates an atmosphere of relational openness and
safety (Glosoff & Durham, 2010; Ladany et al.,
2013). Celia had not facilitated discussions of
cultural identities within and outside of our su-
pervisory dyad, and a vast power differential
remained between us. I often chose not to bring
up cultural factors because doing so felt unsafe,
leaving many important cultural considerations
undiscussed and unaddressed. I believe that I
could have provided more effective and cultur-
ally appropriate therapy for my clients under
Celia’s supervision had we more fully explored
cultural dynamics in our supervision.
Implications and Recommendations
Consistent with my personal experiences de-
scribed thus far, supervision research has sug-
gested that both LGBQ-affirming and nonaf-
firming supervisory behaviors significantly
impact the relationship and, by extension, the
quality of clinical care (Burkard et al., 2009;
Harbin et al., 2008). This research, as well as
my own experiences, can inform efforts to ex-
pand and improve LGBQ-affirmative supervi-
sion practices. As demonstrated by the positive
impact of Rachel’s culturally responsive super-
visory practices on our relationship and my
clinical work, supervisors should initiate discus-
sions of cultural factors early and routinely—
not only if it comes up in a client case (Ancis &
Marshall, 2010). These discussions should in-
clude supervisors’ disclosure of their own cul-
tural identities and the invitation for supervisees
to do the same, which may be facilitated by the
use of cultural genograms (Estrada & Frame,
2004) or Hays’s (2001) ADDRESSING Frame-
work. Supervisors and supervisees should reg-
ularly discuss how cultural differences and
identities might impact their work together, par-
ticularly when supervisors hold privilege over
supervisees (e.g., heterosexual supervisors of
LGBQ trainees). Early and frequent discussions
of cultural factors communicate supervisor
openness, cultural awareness, and humility,
which contribute to an atmosphere of relational
safety and collaboration (Hernández & Mc-
Dowell, 2010). Thus, when difficult experiences
around cultural identities arise, supervisees are
more able and willing to explore them in super-
vision. Throughout, supervisors should foster
developmentally appropriate autonomy by elic-
iting supervisees’ interpretations and sharing
decision-making, which further cultivates stron-
ger working alliances and supervisees’ sense of
competence (Ladany et al., 2013).
Celia’s ineffective supervision of LGBQ is-
sues was a result of ignorance rather than mal-
ice. All clinicians have blind spots, most often
in relation to identity statuses in which they
hold privilege (Pettifor et al., 2014). As many
authors have noted, cultural competence is not a
status one achieves but rather a lifelong process
of self-reflection and learning (e.g., Ancis &
Marshall, 2010; Falender, Burnes, & Ellis,
2013). All supervisors should continually exam-
ine their cultural biases, assumptions, and blind
spots and make concerted efforts to increase
their learning and understanding of cultural
identities and intersectionalities they do and do
not hold.
Although supervisors hold the primary re-
sponsibility in creating a culturally sensitive
and safe supervisory relationships, supervisee
actions are also impactful (Inman, 2006; Sohei-
 LGBQ-AFFIRMING SUPERVISION
lian et al., 2014). Assuming supervisors have
established relational safety and initiate oppor-
tunities, supervisees should actively and openly
participate in discussions of cultural factors.
Supervisees should routinely provide clients’
cultural identities when bringing them up in
supervision and share hypotheses about how
cultural dynamics may be impacting their cli-
ents and therapeutic relationships. Supervisees
should also be open to learning more about
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
areas of relative unfamiliarity and elicit recom-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
mendations from supervisors for educational re-
sources (Hernández, 2008; Pettifor et al., 2014;
Soheilian et al., 2014).
At the organizational level, there is relatively
little direct training or assessment of supervi-
sion compared to other core professional com-
petencies of psychologists (Callahan & Wat-
kins, 2018; Pettifor et al., 2014; Roysircar,
Dobbins, & Malloy, 2010). Graduate programs,
externship sites, and professional organizations
should develop and disseminate evidence-based
training on culturally competent supervision.
These trainings should include modules that
specifically address dynamics of power, privi-
lege, and oppression in relation to each identity
status, including LGBQ issues, while also at-
tending to intersectionality (Pettifor et al., 2014;
Roysircar et al., 2010). In the development and
implementation of these trainings, organizations
should intentionally include professionals and
trainees from marginalized identity statuses
(e.g., LGBQ).
Further research in this area is also needed.
Relatively few studies have focused on the ex-
periences of LGBQ trainees and discussions of
LGBQ issues in supervision. Future studies
should seek to identify the specific supervisor
actions that lead to more effective supervision
of LGBQ trainees and clients. Research should
also examine trainees’ responses to both
LGBQ-affirming and nonaffirming actions to
develop guidelines for trainees on contributing
to LGBQ-affirming supervision and navigating
nonaffirming supervisory relationships. Finally,
the literature clearly demonstrates that LGBQ-
affirming and culturally competent supervision
promotes stronger supervisory working alli-
ances and supervisees’ perceptions of their own
cultural competence (e.g., Burkard et al., 2006;
Phillips et al., 2017), but less is known about its
impact on actual client outcomes. Studies ex-
81
amining client outcomes are needed to support
training and dissemination efforts.
Conclusions
In this article, I described case examples of
LGBQ-affirming and nonaffirming supervision
practices, drawn from my own perspectives as a
queer trainee. From my experiences and review
of the literature, I made several recommenda-
tions for supervisors. First, supervisors should
initiate routine discussions of diverse cultural
identities, including less visible identities like
sexual orientation, and their role in the supervi-
sory dyad as well as the trainees’ therapeutic
relationships (Ancis & Marshall, 2010; Glosoff
& Durham, 2010). Throughout these discus-
sions, supervisors should strive to demonstrate
humility and openness, including judicious self-
disclosure of their own cultural backgrounds
and identities (Hook et al., 2016; Ladany et al.,
2013). When working with LGBQ trainees, het-
erosexual supervisors should acknowledge their
heterosexual privilege; position themselves as
learners and trainees as experts on their own
lived experiences; and adopt affirming, validat-
ing stances on sexual diversity (Burkard et al.,
2009; Satterly & Dyson, 2008). Supervisors
should view cultural competence as a continual
process by engaging in ongoing self-reflection
and training on diverse cultural identities to
extend their knowledge and address blind spots
(Pettifor et al., 2014). By striving for more
competent, affirming practices, supervisors can
improve training experiences and outcomes for
LGBQ trainees in an increasingly diverse pro-
fession and world (APA, 2016; Gates, 2017).
References
American Psychological Association. (2015). Guide-
lines for clinical supervision in health service psy-
chology. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2016). 2015
survey of psychology health service providers.
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2017). Multi-
cultural guidelines: An ecological approach to
context, identity, and intersectionality. Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
Ancis, J. R., & Marshall, D. S. (2010). Using a
multicultural framework to assess supervisees’
perceptions of culturally competent supervision.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 88, 277–
 82 HAGLER
284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010
.tb00023.x
Beinart, H. (2014). Building and sustaining the su-
pervisory relationship. In C. E. Watkins & D. L.
Milne (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of
clinical supervision (pp. 257–281). http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/9781118846360.ch11
Burkard, A. W., Johnson, A. J., Madson, M. B.,
Pruitt, N. T., Contreras-Tadych, D. A., Kozlowski,
J. M., . . . Knox, S. (2006). Supervisor cultural
responsiveness and unresponsiveness in cross-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
cultural supervision. Journal of Counseling Psy-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
chology, 53, 288–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-0167.53.3.288
Burkard, A. W., Knox, S., Hess, S. A., & Schultz, J.
(2009). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual supervisees’
experiences of LGB-affirmative and non-affirma-
tive supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 56, 176–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0167.56.1.176
Callahan, J. L., & Watkins, C. E. (2018). The science
of training III: Supervision, competency, and in-
ternship training. Training and Education in Pro-
fessional Psychology, 12, 245–261. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/tep0000208
Duan, C., & Roehlke, H. (2001). A descriptive “snap-
shot” of cross-racial supervision in university coun-
seling center internships. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 29, 131–146. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2001.tb00510.x
Estrada, D., & Frame, M. W. (2004). Cross-cultural
supervision: Guiding the conversation toward race
and ethnicity. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 32, 307–320.
Falender, C. A. (2010). Relationship and accountabil-
ity: Tensions in feminist supervision. Women &
Therapy, 33(1–2), 22– 41.
Falender, C. A., Burnes, T. R., & Ellis, M. V. (2013).
Multicultural clinical supervision and benchmarks:
Empirical support informing practice and supervi-
sor training. Counseling Psychologist, 41, 8–27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000012438417
Gates, G. J. (2017). In U.S., more adults identifying
as LGBT. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/
poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx
Gatmon, D., Jackson, D., Koshkarian, L., Martos-
Perry, N., Molina, A., Patel, N., & Rodolfa, E.
(2001). Exploring ethnic, gender, and sexual ori-
entation in supervision: Do they really matter?
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Develop-
ment, 29, 102–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j
.2161-1912.2001.tb00508.x
Glosoff, H. L., & Durham, J. C. (2010). Using su-
pervision to prepare social justice counseling ad-
vocates. Counselor Education and Supervision,
50, 116–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-
6978.2010.tb00113.x
Harbin, J. J., Leach, M. M., & Eells, G. T. (2008).
Homonegativism and sexual orientation matching
in counseling supervision. Counselling Psychology
Quarterly, 21, 61–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09515070801913569
Hays, P. A. (2001). Addressing cultural complexities
in practice: A framework for clinicians and coun-
selors. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10411-000
Hernández, P. (2008). The cultural context model in
clinical supervision. Training and Education in
Professional Psychology, 2, 10–17. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/1931-3918.2.1.10
Hernández, P., & McDowell, T. (2010). Intersection-
ality, power, and relational safety in context: Key
concepts in clinical supervision. Training and Ed-
ucation in Professional Psychology, 4, 29–35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017064
Hook, J. N., Watkins, C. E., Jr., Davis, D. E., Owen,
J., Van Tongeren, D. R., & Ramos Marciana, J.
(2016). Cultural humility in psychotherapy super-
vision. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 70,
149–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.psycho-
therapy.2016.70.2.149
Inman, A. G. (2006). Supervisor multicultural com-
petence and its relation to supervisory process and
outcome. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
32, 73– 85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606
.2006.tb01589.x
Ladany, N., Mori, Y., & Mehr, K. E. (2013). Effec-
tive and ineffective supervision. Counseling Psy-
chologist, 41, 28– 47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0011000012442648
Messinger, L. (2007). Supervision of lesbian, gay,
and bisexual social work students by heterosexual
field instructors: A qualitative dyad analysis. Clin-
ical Supervisor, 26, 195–222. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1300/J001v26n01_13
Peters, H. C. (2017). Multicultural complexity: An
intersectional lens for clinical supervision. Inter-
national Journal for the Advancement of Counsel-
ling, 39, 176–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10447-017-9290-2
Pettifor, J., Sinclair, C., & Falender, C. A. (2014).
Ethical supervision: Harmonizing rules and ideals
in a globalizing world. Training and Education in
Professional Psychology, 8, 201–210. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/tep0000046
Pfohl, A. H. (2004). The intersection of personal and
professional identity: The heterosexual supervisor’s
role in fostering the development of sexual minority
supervisees. Clinical Supervisor, 23, 139–164. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1300/J001v23n01_09
Phillips, J. C., Parent, M. C., Dozier, V. C., & Jack-
son, P. L. (2017). Depth of discussion of multicul-
tural identities in supervision and supervisory out-
comes. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 30,
188–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515070
.2016.1169995
 LGBQ-AFFIRMING SUPERVISION 83

Roysircar, G., Dobbins, J. E., & Malloy, K. A. (2010).
Diversity competence in training and clinical practice.
In M. Kenkel & R. Peterson (Eds.), Competency-
based education for professional psychology (pp.
179–197). http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12068-010
Satterly, B. A., & Dyson, D. (2008). Sexual minority
supervision. Clinical Supervisor, 27, 17–38. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/07325220802221462
Soheilian, S. S., Inman, A. G., Klinger, R. S., Isen-
berg, D. S., & Kulp, L. E. (2014). Multicultural
supervision: Supervisees’ reflections on culturally
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
competent supervision. Counselling Psychology
Quarterly, 27, 379–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09515070.2014.961408
Sue, D. W. (2001). Multidimensional facets of cultural
competence. Counseling Psychologist, 29, 790– 821.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000001296002
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2014). Clinical supervision in the
21st century: Revisiting pressing needs and im-
pressing possibilities. American Journal of Psy-
chotherapy, 68, 251–272. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2014.68.2.251

Supervisión afirmativa y no afirmativa de LGBQ: Perspectivas de un aprendiz queer

Investigación ha sugerido que las prácticas culturalmente competentes y de supervisión que afirman lesbianas, gays,
bisexuales y queers (LGBQ) mejoran las alianzas de supervisión laboral y mejora la confianza de los supervisados en su
capacidad para trabajar con diversos clientes. Por el contrario, el heterosexismo de los supervisores y la ignorancia de las
consideraciones culturales pueden hacer los supervisados, particularmente aquellos que se identifican como LGBQ, se
sienten marginados, lo que resulta en disminución de la profundidad y frecuencia con la que se discuten los temas LGBQ
en supervisión así como alianzas laborales más débiles. En este artículo, describo episodios en los que 1 supervisor
involucrado en prácticas que yo, como aprendiz queer, experimenté como apoyo y afirmación de diversas identidades
sexuales. Estas acciones incluyeron la divulgación del supervisor; discusión temprana y rutinaria de temas culturales; y
expresiones de empatía, validación, y humildad. Por el contrario, describo episodios en los que experimenté las acciones
de otro supervisor como no reafirmantes. Estas acciones incluyeron microagresiones heterosexistas, discusión poco
frecuente de la diversidad cultural y minimizando la importancia de la orientación sexual y otras consideraciones culturales.
Contextualizo tanto prácticas afirmantes como no afirmantes en investigaciones existentes y hago varias recomendaciones
para supervisores, supervisados, organizaciones profesionales e investigadores.

supervisión clínica, competencia cultural, cuestiones LGBQ, ejemplos de casos, consejeria multicultural

女同性恋者、男同性恋者、双性恋者、酷儿（LGBQ）肯定和非确认督导：来自一个酷儿实习生的观点
研究表明，认同女同性恋者，男同性恋者，双性恋者和酷儿（LGBQs）的文化能力和督导实践会改善督导的工作
联盟，加强受督导者对与不同来访者合作能力的信心。相比之下，督导的异性恋主义和对文化因素的无知会让那
些认定为LGBQ的受督导者感到被边缘化，并且导致在督导中讨论LGBQ问题的深度和频率下降以及较弱的工作联
盟。在本文中，我将描述督导对我作为一名酷儿实习生的支持和对我不同的性身份的肯定。这些行动包括督导的
自我披露，及早和日常地讨论文化问题;同理心的表达、认可、和谦卑。相比之下，我讲述了另一位对我性身份不
认可的督导的插曲。这些行为包括对异性恋者的微小的进攻行为，不经常讨论文化多样性，淡化性和其他文化因
素的考量。我将肯定和非肯定都置于现有的研究文本中。并为督导、受督导者、专业组织和研究人员提出若干建
议。

临床督导, 文化能力, LGBQ问题, 案例, 多元文化咨询

Received September 14, 2018

Revision received February 3, 2019
Accepted February 9, 2019 䡲